Models of Psycho-Spiritual Care: Responding to the Spiritual Needs of Our Contemporaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spiritual development has been an important issue in the lives of many people since the dawn of humanity. In order to achieve their goal of greater spiritual maturity, they often asked help from a person they considered to be more spiritually advanced than themselves. With the beginnings of Christianity, this human propensity became even more pronounced and formalized, taking the shape of spiritual guidance in some form, which, over periods of both growth and decline, has recently come to resurgence in popularity. Today, there are also a significant number of people who seek professional help from therapists in resolving psychological issues and who, at the same time, would also like to use their personal spiritual resources to help them reach healing. Thus, a grow-ing need for spiritually integrated psychological counseling has arisen. These developments require a better understanding of both the spiritual processes and the manner of helping people grow spiritually through the door of psychological counseling in some form. This article is a survey of the literature that presents a broad range of models to meet spiritual needs of modern people. Presenting such a variety of approaches is an attempt to widen the scope of what is offered as therapeutic assistance for spiritually sensitive individuals. In the conclusion, the author proposes new modalities for the inclusion of spiritual content in the counseling process.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".